points by _ache_ 3 days ago | 0 comments
Any idea why?
The "internal" memo: https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-is-offering-buyout...
[–] NikolaNovak 3 days ago
[–] oliyoung 3 days ago
> you're probably not the likely target for the offer
but if I was that employable, and offered that severance, I'd not give it one second's thought
and that's the problem, these severance packages are more often taken by the best people in the company
[–] clutchdude 3 days ago
"Up to" can suddenly become much less once you realize company paid healthcare premiums now come out of your paycheck.
[–] sedatk 3 days ago
> In this job market, that may not be enough
Could still be much better than a sudden layoff though.
[–] vessenes 3 days ago
The prior VRP shook out a number of folks who were banking their options grants -- it was like "look let's be clear, you're not moving up any more and you're checked out. Thank you for your service." I'd imagine they were happy enough with that to go a little broader. The pay scales work out to getting paid more the longer you've been there. Mentioned in the memo is employee choice, and I think that this is likely designed with that in mind - why not let people self identify without penalty when you want to reduce headcount? The goal is likely to increase morale for those who want to stay, both by showing them they have the ability to stay, and getting low morale people out the door.
[–] cubefox 3 days ago
Perhaps because of increased productivity with LLMs, especially for developers?
[–] fugalfervor 2 days ago
Microsoft employees (developers) were told during an internal keynote that we need to be more judicious about using AI because it is expensive, makes some tasks take longer, and there is no evidence supporting increased productivity.
[–] astrange 3 days ago
Increased productivity makes employees more valuable, not less.
[–] cubefox 3 days ago
Not necessarily. If there aren't enough tasks to make use of the increased productivity of the employees, it makes them less valuable, because the company can get away with fewer employees.
[–] geraneum 3 days ago
Have we saturated all tasks that can be done by computers through development?
[–] qwerpy 3 days ago
The downvotes on your comments are weird. Maybe coming from an emotional place. I get it, I wouldn't want to be constantly reminded that the career I sacrificed so much for is a dead end. But it's true, at big companies there may be a ton of items in the backlog but none of them bring in more money. Having a bunch of idle engineers sitting around wastes money, and LLMs allow more engineers to do less. Why would a responsible VP keep around expensive employees who don't contribute to revenue?
[–] dyauspitr 3 days ago
You’re getting downvoted because for most of us this is our biggest nightmare
[–] fugalfervor 2 days ago
It's also a very simplisic understanding and an identifier of someone falling victim to the Dunning-Krueger effect.
[–] causal 3 days ago
You are getting downvoted but I have to believe this is at least what some of the executives are thinking, even if it proves to be a complete illusion.
In this job market, that may not be enough time to feel comfortable and safe taking the offer (if you're a super-employable hotshot with offers awaiting in your LinkedIn, you're probably not the likely target for the offer)